User talk:Bluemilkman/Builds To Work On/R-W Cripslash Ranger
Discussion NO builds should be recommended for RA or TA unless they have a rez (monk builds are excluded) I have not tested this build but I fail to see the purpose of the use of an animal. It seems to me you just had spare attribute points and decided to use a pet. I would suggest an energy attack skill when you don't have adrenaline and a rez sig instead of charm and comfort animal.--Girly Man 04:39, 25 May 2007 (CEST) I actually tried this build. I laughed, I cried, but mostly cried. Have you ever done any real PvP? Sure this is fun, but it DOESNT WORK. Ni 04:31, 15 May 2007 (CEST) :yes i have it is my friends build he just loves fun builds, cuz if the build aint fun u aint havin fun, also if you use it with 2 other pirates it should work. Hellbringer --EDIT-- I use all types of build mostly invinci builds. im still glad some1 tested it b4 sayin some unwanted stuff. Hellbringer 22:35, 14 May 2007 (EST) ::My point is is that there are higher damaging builds out there. Ni 04:38, 15 May 2007 (CEST) First of all, this kinda violates PvXwiki:Build Naming Policy since "Pirate" isn't particularly evocative of this particular build. Now, if I may speak as a user rather than an Admin... I am going to have to say that despite the fact that we don't have a vetting policy yet, and yes, I will admit I haven't tested this, but...... I have more than a little PvP experience, and, while builds like this may be fun as Ni pointed out, I cannot imagine that this is practical, because, even if this does work per se, there are much more effective builds... [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 04:39, 15 May 2007 (CEST) :yes defiant elements i kno this but i just like the effectiveness and fun this build is, i dont like cheap builds, i like more effective builds also but i havent found a simple build that can kill and die only once or twice. it does work with the right ppl and is seriously practical, basically since u can laugh at a warrior that gets pwned. Hellbringer 22:44, 14 May 2007 (EST) ::See, I get what you mean, but, while a large element of GuildWars is simply having fun, our purpose as a Wiki is not necessarily to document said amusing builds. That's what PvX:WELL is all about. The idea is that we want our builds to work well, and, not just well, but we want them to be the most effective builds for their given purpose. This is the kind of thing that is nice to have in the userspace, but, realistically, if I were to gauge its odds of becoming "favored," keeping in mind that we are trying to document the best builds, I would not give this great odds. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 04:49, 15 May 2007 (CEST) :::ok Defiant, i just better keep my fingers crossed that ppl love this build and the sort of effectiveness. i should prolly post my broad head arrow build then cuz it is very good in everything. my broad head arrow build can take out all the shrines since it interrupts super badly. Hellbringer 22:52, 14 May 2007 (EST) Ok, i havent tried this build, and im not saying its bad (off course). But one thing i will suggest to change already now, is the major expertise rune to a minor, and all survivor runes to radiant. Since a melee shouldnt have so low health, and low energy, and u will need the energy to refresh apply poison and everything else. Its not worth 7 energy and 35 hp, to raise your expertise with 1 point. Sry i havent tried yet before saying this, but something just aint to discussion, if it should be changed or not (to the better good of the build). I will try it later, it looks pretty interresting :). Btw nice name ^^ :lol i found that u dont really need radiant armor cuz u dont go less than 8 energy. i also like the name too, i didnt make it my friend did he just wanted me to post. and thnx for telling me ur goin to test it. Hellbringer 13:13, 16 May 2007 (EST) Just so you know, taking 2 slots for a pet with only 5 beast is pretty much a waste of skill slots Unless a necro wants a portable corpse machine, of course. Tycn 13:00, 31 May 2007 (CEST) What's the whole point in cripslash on a ranger? If you want poison+crippling, run cripshot. If you want pressure+crippling, run cripslash. Not a mix of poison + crippling + pressure, it just doesn't fit on it. . This isn't suitable for any of it, since you're dealing a low-dmg with flurry, and frenzy isn't suitable on a ranger either. Unexist 21:27, 17 June 2007 (EDT) My variant prof=range/warri swords=12 expert=10+2 wilder=8+1+1slashgashpoisonunguentsignetreflexesstridesignet/build this is what I haev been running in RA for a bit, and I quite like it. I can see it having some potential as a split ranger too, but havent tested it out. Tbh I think this is quite a lot better than the main bar. Antidote signet can be replaced with something else, but gives a nice way to get off blind.—''The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' Feriluce ( ) }. :Ooo much better. But this is AB/CM apparently, so you can drop the res sig. --8765 06:32, 20 May 2007 (CEST) ::Yeh, this is a much more interesting skill bar. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 07:15, 20 May 2007 (CEST) :::This bar I would and will actually use... When I made my new ranger the idea of a pirate was what I had in mind and this sort of bar does suit. Something similar to this I would favour. I dont know about the pet varients. Usually when I see a pet in ab I kill it for easy points :P --[[User:Advent.mongoose|'Advent Mongoose']] (''talk'') 10:04, 20 May 2007 (CEST) ::::thnx ill put it on there. Hellbringer 18:05, 20 May 2007 (CEST) :::::I was looking at this, by pouring points into expertise you can only have one IAS, and I was also thinking that maybe a variant which makes use of tactics would be interesting, maybe some blocking skills instead of natural stride and lightning reflexes. But then still no good IAS. So I suppose it's the best bar you actually can make. '~\^/~' [[User:Napalm Flame|'Napalm Flame']] (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2007 (CEST) ::::::Both those stances are blocking skills. 50% on NS, 75% on LR :P -Egon 16:35, 28 May 2007 (CEST) :::::::when ı get back to my house ıll post my Drunk Pırate (uses Tactıcs) ıt ıs very effectıve and can gıve a lot of condıtıons. ıts got 3 self heals ın ıt but stıll deals a lot of dmg. Hellbringer 05:48, 31 May 2007 (CEST) ViM? prof=range/warri swords=11 expert=8+2 wilder=8+1+1 tactics=10arterygashpoisondirthamstringis minestridesignet/build Just throwing this out there for heck of it. Not even sure if the attributes add up... I dunno, this build screamed ViM to me, mostly because I'm stuck in the past. :/ --Mgrinshpon ( /T) 17:24, 25 May 2007 (CEST) You May Submit Your Variation Above my friend thinks that every1 should be open for their ideas. if i like it i will put it up there, and if others think its good i will put it up. please feel free to submit ur variations for this wonderful build, i might put up my Drunk Pirate build up (it uses tactics) Hellbringer 14:41, 21 May 2007 :Sorry, but it's not your choice what changes. If the community thinks it's best to change it, they will, and if you constantly change it back... If you want to keep an original copy, put t in your userspace. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk··· ) 13:57, 24 May 2007 (CEST) ::i dont really care if it gets changed... and i dont need an original copy Hellbringer 16:19, 24 May 2007 (CEST) IAS I think this needs a better IAS. I mean, 10/30 isn't that good, Let's see Flail, has a 5 second duration so it wouldn't be ideal, HOw about Frenzy? You already have a cancel stance int eh forum of natural stride. Just throwing out ideas. I'm also reffering to the bar that I'd actualy use, ie the one with antiode signet and natural stride and such. --Dazra 15:10, 25 May 2007 (CEST) Also, in the wquipment section you should have a Vampiric for the added damage, and an elemental for use vs warriors(also to use when not actualy swinging) Usualy I'd say you also need a zealous, but as a ranger with expertise it should be fine without. --Dazra 15:13, 25 May 2007 (CEST) :Nevermind I can just do it myself, also edited the usage sections and coutners a little bit to be more clear. --Dazra 15:33, 25 May 2007 (CEST) Amazing Tried this just now in RA, it works AMAZING! I even managed to own an E/D tank with the degen! Not only is it a nice ranger pirate, but I made a proph ranger called 'Corsair From Kryta' and I got some interesting comments come back. '~\^/~' [[User:Napalm Flame|'Napalm Flame']] (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2007 (CEST) If you're being sarcastic, you should try harder. And I seriously doubt you could take down an E/D with -7 degen. Tycn 02:38, 2 June 2007 (CEST) :I'm not. And I really DID take down the E/D. He couldn't get his enches up to support mystic regen because of interrupts xP '~\^/~' [[User:Napalm Flame|'Napalm Flame']] (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2007 (CEST) ::Well... then it wasn't really you that killed him :p Tycn 04:51, 2 June 2007 (CEST) Believe it or not... This build works REALLY well... I dropped Throw Dirt and Whirling Defense for Flurry and Natural Stride. It worked really well in Hero Battles... so far at least. It is a GREAT split character. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk··· ) 19:03, 2 June 2007 (CEST) :Same, i used bottom bar but switched out LR for Flurry, works like a gem, even in RA. '~\^/~' [[User:Napalm Flame|'Napalm Flame']] (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2007 (CEST) ::Believe it or not, George isn't at home. ::Please leave a message at the beep. ::I must be out, or I'd pick up the phone. ::Where could I be? ::Believe it or not, I'm not home! :) :: [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 23:43, 2 June 2007 (CEST) This is a Ranger acting as a Warrior...and isn't really that good of a Build. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 23:28, 2 June 2007 (CEST) Now I thought it was more of a gimicy build... and came to very much the same conclusion readem... but I did actually test it because it really is fun and in ab using the 3rd varient with final thrust believe it or not it was really good. I tend to run burning arrow but this kept up pace. It actually works... for some odd reason.--[[User:Advent.mongoose|'Advent Mongoose']] (''talk'') 16:15, 4 June 2007 (CEST) Yeah and it also uses 1 sup and 1 major and brings a pet for "extra defense". - [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 01:10, 5 June 2007 (CEST) Dont know how your reading skills are there skakid... *points to reference of THIRD varient* theres no pet there bud. Gg.--[[User:Advent.mongoose|'Advent Mongoose']] (''talk'') 03:15, 5 June 2007 (CEST) Another thing... I'd say you should just get rid of the pet varients... It seems everyone who likes this is mostly in favour of the 3rd... like myself.--[[User:Advent.mongoose|'Advent Mongoose']] (''talk'') 03:28, 5 June 2007 (CEST) Agreed. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk··· ) 04:38, 5 June 2007 (CEST) One bar to rule them all Agree with single bar, and vote for change to Flurry/Frenzy. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk··· ) 04:53, 5 June 2007 (CEST) Third Bar, Lightning -> Frenzy prz. Or Flurry, but I don't like gimping the damage.. and there's a nice cancel stance called Natural stride already, so might as well go with frenzy. --Dazra 19:42, 5 June 2007 (CEST) Gimp the damage, as this Build deals very little through DPS. It uses conditions rather. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 23:39, 5 June 2007 (CEST) Flurry/Frenzy Flurry #~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk··· ) #''(your vote here)'' Frenzy #''(your vote here)'' erm, first to 3 wins? - [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 23:51, 5 June 2007 (CEST) :Neither, just take final thrust xP Nice finisher, means you can actually do some DAMAGE. ~~ [[User:Napalm Flame|'Napalm Flame']] ^_^ (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2007 (CEST) ::I believe that this builds main damage is from the conditions, and those require adrenaline to use. Therefore, I believe Flurry should be the better one to use. You can keep it up anytime, and it doesn't matter if you are under fire. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk··· ) 01:02, 6 June 2007 (CEST) :::I'd like to ask WHY is this a ranger primary? You don't really gain anything out of expertise, (except apply poison, which isn't all that helpful anyways), your IAS is warrior skill anyways, you lose your conjure going R/W, and id like to stress my point some more, that energy is not a problem for this build even on a warrior, so why go into the ranger class when you could use warriors?rangers have a less useful primary attribute (for this build) and less armor. You're sacrificing alot more damage for really just apply poison (four degen WOW!), a condition remover, and troll unguent (useful, but healing signet works just fine).— [[User:Cheese Slaya|'Cheese Slaya']] (Talk) 06:43, 6 June 2007 (CEST) ::::I have said that since the beginning :/. Nice gimmick Build, but no more then that. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 06:49, 6 June 2007 (CEST) :::::It is worse. But they don't want to accept that. - [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 17:57, 6 June 2007 (CEST) ::::::Now I never said its BETTER than a cripslash warrior. I love my warrior and would still use him. BUT this is in practice *and theres the kicker, IN PRACTICE* actually quite good.--[[User:Advent.mongoose|'Advent Mongoose']] (''talk'') 08:15, 7 June 2007 (CEST) :::::::So then you admit it violates PvX:WELL? - [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 17:53, 7 June 2007 (CEST) ::::::::I don't think this violates PvX:Well. Show me a W/R build that we CURRENTLY HAVE that does 7 degen, deep wound, relatively good utility(ie, it can split if needed), and immediately covers the conditions with easily appliable poison. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (talk··· ) 18:35, 7 June 2007 (CEST) :That doesn't matter. This doesn't kill, it annoys. Apply poison adds 8 extra DPS, which doesn't compare to a conjure. If you're in high level pvp where you have to split, then you can easily have someone else on you team bring apply poison, rather than a low DPS melee wanna-be. The fact is the damage from this build is low in comparison to a conjure crippleslash warrior, and I think that violates PvX:WELL. - [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 18:46, 7 June 2007 (CEST) I'm pretty sure the primary is a ranger, so that takes out the whole warrior is better argument. But I may be wrong. Maybe that only matters for PvE builds. Bluemilkman 19:15, 7 June 2007 (CEST) In some ways it has advantages over a warrior with energy skills and constant high defence. Also when testing it I had no trouble killing ppl in ra or ab. This doesnt of course mean their builds were spectacular but I definately had no more trouble with this than with my burning arrow build. Only thing I did miss was interupts. But then you dont often get that option with a bar like this. Definately I had no problems with the build when using it in game. Does that mean the build is flawless? no none are. --[[User:Advent.mongoose|'Advent Mongoose']] (''talk'') 21:19, 7 June 2007 (CEST) IMO it does matter for PvP builds, because you have the chance to make any character you want. - [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 00:43, 8 June 2007 (CEST) Definatly agree with skakid here. It does matter for pvp builds... Imo more than pve as like he says you can make any class you want. But with further testing still I dont see that this lacks hugely to the performance of other ranger builds. Hell with lr and final thrust I was killing the hell out of crip slash warriors due to block rate. But I have to add... pvp is fickle and one day you may happen to do amazingly based on an opponants skill rather than builds of your own. --[[User:Advent.mongoose|'Advent Mongoose']] (''talk'') 05:40, 8 June 2007 (CEST) :One more thing I might add is I have had monks and others whisper me after using this build stating because of constantly covering conditions and staying alive so long that I was difficult to heal through at times. And others saying that I just plain owned them, theyre not ready to actually get the beatdown from a ranger with a sword.--[[User:Advent.mongoose|'Advent Mongoose']] (''talk'') 05:44, 8 June 2007 (CEST) ::lol, where the heck were you playing? and did the monks you fought have any condition removal? imo this does violate PvX WELL, as the dps isn't comparable to a warrior AUTOATTACKING (unless you count the deep wound, which a warrior can apply much more oftenly and eficiently using skills like enraging charge. as i've said before, there is not point in the ranger primary, becuase even a warrior probably wouldn't have problems maintaining its energy (maybe might have problems w/ apply poison, but you can always just use zealous). to make a long story short, violates PvX:WELL imo and should be deleted. — [[User:Cheese Slaya|'Cheese Slaya']] (Talk) 07:02, 8 June 2007 (CEST) Yes, the advantages of a Warrior primary outweigh the ability to apply Poison in melee, which is really this build's only 'strength.' However, this build isn't going anywhere for a while, and once we get a vetting system installed and this likely gets a unfavorable rating (sorry to burst any bubbles), we should not delete it. It can serve as a reminder to people who want to create similiar builds; if they create them anyways, we can use this build to justify their deletion according to PvX:WELL. - Krowman 07:10, 8 June 2007 (CEST) :Which is all fair enough, this is a forum for "excellent" builds at best and in that sense this may not cut the mustard with general opinion. My arguement was that it does do quite well considering the impression it first gives and cheese note my added comment about OTHERS skill being a larger factor sometimes than the build. Either way I still run burning arrow and my warrior anyway :P--[[User:Advent.mongoose|'Advent Mongoose']] (''talk'') 12:06, 8 June 2007 (CEST) ::Then I say put it on your userpage and play it as much as you want to, and have fun with it. Mean time, can we take it off the build-space? -- gw:user:Zerris 14:06, 8 June 2007 (CEST) :::Dont look at me... aint my build...--[[User:Advent.mongoose|'Advent Mongoose']] (''talk'') 02:21, 9 June 2007 (CEST) yea... I've noticed like 1 other build that is very close to mine and was wondering is someone probably goin to put them together??? --Hellbringer 03:19, 27 July 2007 (CEST) Delete I have deleted this as per PvX:WELL. If you would like to argue for its restoration, do so here. Points to keep in mind: #A warrior primary can use this build much more effectively. #WELL does not say "if it's a crap build, we can keep it because we don't have another copy of it." In fact, that's part of the reason I wrote it - to take down those kinds of builds. #It looks fun. It plays fun. But the first thing I saw on this talk page was "I actually tried this build. I laughed, I cried, but mostly cried. Have you ever done any real PvP? Sure this is fun, but it DOESNT WORK. Ni 04:31, 15 May 2007 (CEST)". That kinda sums it up. #If you simply want it restored so you can take the last version/an earlier version to store in your namespace, simply let myself or any other admin know and we will copy the version you want into your namespace. -- Armond Warblade 22:49, 30 July 2007 (CEST) Can I have a a copy here? Thanks. I just want the final version, and a copy of the discussion if you could. Thanks. Bluemilkman 05:46, 31 July 2007 (CEST) Bluemilkman, I can understand where you are coming from with this build, but I have actually tested it and it just doesnt have enough energy management for a 15 e preperation. I haven't tested a lot of the builds in here yet. I might test them and find out I hate them, and delete them again later. But right now, I want to make sure it's bad before it gets lost forever. If you ever want to help me test any of the builds in this section, please tell me. Thanks. Bluemilkman 17:18, 5 August 2007 (CEST) all i can say ty for tryin to work on my build that i posted i hope it works good for u, most ppl dont get that this build is actually very simple. --Hellbringer 03:30, 6 August 2007 (CEST)